Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs

From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:38:10 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:24:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs
> From: RobIrving@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:09:47 EDT> To: updates@globalserve.net> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs> >Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 20:28:06 -0300> >From: "Stanton T. Friedman" <fsphys@brunnet.net>> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs> Stanton,> >I think Rob's comments are so much horse manure.>> You appear to be referring to the following comments, but your> reply didn't really address why, nor answer the question I> posed...>> >>With sufficient and clearly presented evidence I can't see much> >>of a problem. What exactly is the problem, in your opinion? I> >>personally don't accept the line that scientists are too worried> >>about reputation to involve themselves in ufology - that argument> >>doesn't hold water.>> I maintain that if the ETH were ever presented in a manner that> didn't rely on anecdotal and bogus documentary evidence, it> wouldn't face the stonewalling from the scientific community> that many imagine.>> If such evidence doesn't exist at present, so be it. Keep on> with the quest, but whining that you are not getting the> validation you feel you deserve, or perhaps simply crave, won't> help matters.>> Other revolutionary leaps in understanding have successfully> made it to acceptance; Evolution, Relativity, Quantum theory and> others - their main proponents achieving general validation in> their lifetime.>> That's not to say that others haven't had problems, or that> there are not good examples of the contrary, but it seems to me> that imagining that some kind of subtle or not so subtle> conspiracy exists to deny your 'truth' is indicative of the> classic descent into paranoia, usually occurring when belief is> dominant.>> So, Stanton, what exactly is the problem in your opinion? Why> can't we read your paper 'Flying Saucers ARE Real' in a science> journal?>> Rob
The problem is that you and Peter constantly ask the wrong
question (What are UFOs.. as opposed to "Are any UFOs ET
Spacecraft"). You often make pronouncements not based on
evidence, you constantly ignore the fairly obvious national
security aspects of UFOs, you presume on other people's
motivation (Did I say my goal was to publish "Flying Saucers ARE
Real" in a science journal?.. though I gather you haven't read
my items in Physics Today and Aeronautics and Astronautics or my
congressional testimony.
I mention my lectures to professional groups because the
responses clearly indicate that they will pay attention to facts
and data.
You are wasting people's time with theoretical
claptrap.
The simplest explanation for the best observations(by competent
observers, investigated by competent investigators like Jim
McDonald, Bruce Maccabee, John Schuessler etc) whose appearance,
texture, protuberances clearly indicate they were manufactured,
and whose behavior-- high speed and no speed, sharp turns, lack
of noise, exhaust, visible external engines indicates they were
not made on earth, because if they had been in the 1940s, 1950s,
we Earthlings would be using them as military craft. They would
make wonderful weapons delivery and defense systems, able to fly
circles around anything we have been flying.
Since we are still building F-16,17,18, MIG 29, Mirage 5 etc,
what was built back then wasn't built by us, therefore it was
built at some Extraterrestrial location. Of course that doesn't
answer all the questions. It just says "not made here". Occam's
razor applies. ET vehiciles. Have any of you splendid writers
done field investigations, visited archives, had a security
clearance? Talk is cheap.